Working for an End to Apartheid

Commentary is a regular feature of the Crimson editorial page that provides a forum for opinion from members of the Harvard community. Those interested in contributing pieces should contact the editorial chairman.

APARTHEID WILL END in South Africa. Its end will almost surely come during the lifetime of those who are currently students. The forms of racial repression exercised by the white minority in South Africa will be abolished by the efforts of Black South Africans and their allies--whites, coloreds and Asians.

The past two years of intensified movement to freedom, and the failure of the white rulers to institute real change, has so polarized South Africa that today there is no middle ground. The slow step-by-step reforms which some had hoped for never came, and the credibility of those who called for "constructive engagement" is now gone.

Change is upon South Africa now, and the outstanding questions are: Can we help it? Can we speed it? Can we limit violence?

The role of outsiders in South Africa has never been great, but there are things that can be done to help the forces of change in South Africa. One of these has been clear from the beginning, and that is to remove those economic props which have aided the apartheid regime and to end the external complicity in economic support for the regime by eliminating and severely restricting external economic aid that has come through investment and forms of trade.

The large transnational corporations set up for business in South Africa to take advantage of the stability they perceived in the stronghanded white minority rule and the large supply of cheap South African Black labor. More than 75 percent of all transnational corporate investments on the continent of Africa were located in South Africa, thus providing not only economic aid to South Africa, but South African economic leverage over other countries on the continent.

IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT that the movement for corporate disinvestment from South Africa takes on real meaning. A successful campaign by which the major corporations--oil, auto, electronics, computers, etc.--were to economically disengage from South Africa would, at the very least, represent a severe undermining of the credibility of the South African economy and probably create additional pressures on the South African government to make real changes.

The pressure for disinvestment of the transnationals has come largely through the campaign waged on university campuses and in municipal and state legislatures which said simply: We will not continue to hold investments in your companies as long as you go on with a policy of propping up apartheid by maintaining your corporate investments in South Africa.

Will the economic pressure work? By itself, obviously not. But remember it is coupled with vigorous efforts by Black South Africans to abolish the apartheid system at home. That it creates pressure is clear.

When the international bankers just over a year ago indicated that they would not extend new loans and would not roll over the loans to the South African government then in place, the South African government responded in anguish. It froze funds, forbade financial transfers out of the country, stopped trading the Rand and began a campaign to keep the money flowing in.

Although a "compromise" was worked out with the international bankers, it was clear to all in the financial communities that the South African economy was going to be in trouble. Within South Africa itself a group of prominent white (English speaking) business leaders took steps of their own, including visits to Lusaka, Zambia for conferences with the leadership of the banned African National Congress. The government was furious, but realized it could not act against its own business leadership.

It has become clear with each passing month that investment in South Africa does not make good financial sense today, and it is in this context that we can understand the pull-outs by the transnational giants--General Motors, International Business Machine Corporation and others that are currently under way. It makes sense of the fact that some 70 transnationals, either publicly or quietly, recently undertook efforts to sell their South African investments, often at some financial loss. The deeply undermined South African economy is not attracting new external investors, contrary to the current view that transnationals from other countries quickly move in when others sells their holdings.

WILL THE DISINVESTMENT by the transnationals hurt and hinder efforts at change? The references to the rising Lager mentality whereby South Africans draw the wagons round themselves and dig in for stubborn defense is almost certainly true. But it ought by now be very clear that the pressure white South Africa feels comes primarily from inside, from the vigorous efforts at liberation by the oppressed Black majority. The removal of investments and the disengagement from the economy of South Africa, just reminds white South Africa's governmental leadership that they cannot expect aid and comfort from abroad.

Will Blacks become hurt financially or unemployed by the withdrawals? The answer is maybe yes, but the Black leadership in the trade unions, churches and political organizations have made it clear that it is the rebuilding of a liberated and multiracial South Africa that is their goal, and they are willing to sacrifice for it. It ill behooves us to go on telling them what we think is good for them. They have spoken with clarity and certainty.

Are the current disinvestments by the transnational giants and by other American corporations real or cosmetic? The major corporations that have pulled out recently have coupled their statements about the questionable economic state of South Africa with clear statements about their abhorrence of apartheid, their unwillingness to remain directly involved in it and their recognition of the pressures back here in the United States on them to disengage from South Africa. To this extent it represents a signal victory for those who have been pushing the economic giants to act morally responsible in their investments.

However, it is equally clear that in some cases the major corporations have tempered their withdrawals by remaining significantly engaged financially through licensing of the manufacture of their products locally, through supplying parts to local manufacturers through third parties and by continuing to provide supplies and other forms of aid. To the extent that they attempt to modify severely their disengagement, continued pressure will need to be brought. The aim should be clear that those financial activities within control of the corporation should be disengaged from the economy of South Africa.

But for our part, as opponents of apartheid in South Africa, we should make equally clear that our goal is to end apartheid, not necessarily to become engaged in continued struggles for complete purity. There is little doubt that the situation of disinvestment will require continued monitoring and, in a number of cases, very clear calls for economic honesty to match high moral statements.

DURING THE COMING MONTHS a number of other major corporations will engage in one form or another of disinvestment from South Africa. Those of us who have been concerned with the problem have an additional duty to keep them "honest." The corporate giants ought to recognize that their financial activities will remain under careful scrutiny. For us, we must, as individuals and as a community, remain willing to answer the question Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu asked when he visited here early in the year. He said, "Freedom will come to South Africa, and when we get to the other side we will look back and ask 'Were you with us?"' Let us make sure that our answer is a firm yes.

Everett I. Mendelsohn is a professor of the History of Science. He is a member of the American Friends Service Committee and an outspoken critic of Harvard's investment policy.